Estimativa de custos evitados atribuídos a um programa de rastreio de colo curto para prevenção da prematuridade na perspectiva do SUS

• Autor(a) principal: Silva, Thais V.
• Data de Publicação: 2023
• Outros Autores: Borovac-Pinheiro, Anderson, Pacagnella, Rodolfo C.
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por; eng
• Título da fonte: Revista de Saúde Pública
• DOI: 10.11606/s1518-8787.2023057004376
• Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/220475
• topic: Infant, Premature; Cervix Uteri; Mass Screening; Recém-Nascido Prematuro; Colo do Útero; Programas de Rastreamento

OBJECTIVE: To perform an economic cost analysis of the implementation of a short cervix screening program to reduce preterm birth in singleton pregnancies in a short-term time horizon. METHODS: We performed a cost-benefit economic analysis using the P5 trial database, a randomized multicenter clinical trial for prevention of preterm birth. Data collection was conducted from July 2015 to March 2019 in 17 different Brazilian hospitals. We conducted a cost analysis for universal cervical screening in singleton pregnancies between 18 weeks and 22 weeks plus 6 days. In subjects with a cervical length ≤ 25 mm, the analysis incorporated the costs of administering 200 mg/day of vaginal progesterone prophylactically until 36 weeks gestation. These findings were subsequently compared with the economic implications of forgoing cervical screening. The time horizon comprised from birth to 10 weeks postpartum. The outcome was measured monetarily in Brazilian real (R$) from the perspective of the Unified Health System. RESULTS: Among 7,844 women, 6.67% (523) had a cervix ≤ 25 mm. The cost of screening with transvaginal ultrasound and vaginal progesterone for prevention of births with < 34 weeks was estimated at R$ 383,711.36, while non-screening generated an estimated additional cost of R$ 446,501.69 (related to the 29 non-screened preterm deliveries). Thus, screening and prophylaxis would generate a final cost reduction of R$ 62,790.33, constituting a possible cost-benefit strategy. CONCLUSION: Universal short cervix screening for preterm birth has lower costs compared to non-screening within a short-term time horizon, which suggests an interesting benefitcost ratio. Future studies should consider the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic treatment using sensitivity analyses in different scenarios within the Brazilian health system, as well as analyses that consider the long-term costs associated with preterm births, to robustly justify the implementation of a short cervix screening program.